A former 40 year Atheist analyzes Atheism, without resorting to theism, deism, or fantasy.***If You Don't Value Truth, Then What DO You Value?***If we say that the sane can be coaxed and persuaded to rationality, and we say that rationality presupposes logic, then what can we say of those who actively reject logic?***Atheists have an obligation to give reasons in the form of logic and evidence for rejecting Theist theories.

Monday, August 18, 2014

A Feminist Plan To Reduce The Male Population To 10% or Less

Not exactly the Nietzsche of feminism - more like the Auguste Comte - the "Femitheist" proposes that the population of men be reduced to 1% - 10%. The remaining men would be genetically engineered (by women of course) and would be kept on "reservations", where their lives would be like a permanent vacation. She is interviewed by Toby McCasker:

" Would men be kept in isolation like stud horses?
I believe we must remove men from the community and place them in their own specific sections of society, akin to subsidised or state-funded reservations, so they can be redefined. We can make not only men safer, but women as well. By subsidising said reservations through the state we can provide men with activities, healthcare, entertainment, shelter, protection, and everything that one could ever require in life. This will remove conventional inequality from society. By reducing the number of men to 10 percent of the total population, their socio-biovalue will be raised. They will live out their lives happily and safely, and male disposability will be a thing of the past.

But don’t men have value beyond breeding?
If technology has not advanced to a point where labour can be done without men, the few men that are necessary for said labour will be allowed to work on the outside of the reservations to complete whatever tasks necessary—if they wish.

Like slaves?
Not as slaves, simply as workers performing a duty, in the same way workers today do. Only without the need for monetary reimbursement as they would have no need for such a thing. This would be highly monitored and regulated.

What about the ambitions of the individual? Some men may aspire to more than luxury breeding pens.
Some would argue it would be a dystopian world because it wouldn't be free in the present conventional sense. However that is misguided. It will be utopian because it will be a world almost without conflict where people cooperate and are treated properly within a well-engineered and long-forged system. "

Undoubtedly there are men who would sign up for this, possibly the likes of the Friendly Atheist and the ObamaCare pajama-boy. But what most men do is to create the world that Femitheist lives in, maintain it, and create evermore new things. It's doubtful that femitheist could change the oil in her car, much less manufacture a car or design a new one. And she completely fails to account for the rest of the world which is not decadent Leftist western in nature, but which has its own ideas about what men will put up with. According to her, the feminist imperative to eliminate men from the all-feminine outside world will, like evolution, require the magic of Deep Time.

In reality, women who have actually experienced an all-female competitive setting tend to come away from it scarred and more favorable toward men. But the females would be engineered too:

" That’s kind of depressing.
The purpose of living is merely to persist and perpetuate our species. If someone is willing to give you all you require to survive and live comfortably, simply because you exist, then you have already achieved all that truly matters.

Doesn’t all this dismiss the notion of companionship and the family unit?
Heterosexual companionship and the nuclear family model, yes.

What do you propose as alternatives?
Children should be raised communally and by the state. The nuclear family model is a breeding ground of deceptions, mediocrities, treacheries, hypocrisy, and violence. It needs to be abolished. Bigotry, prejudice, and antiquated convictions are passed down through each generation. The conventional family unit indoctrinates our youth and drains them of their potential. My solution would be to assign children caretakers whose task would simply be to provide shelter, food, clothing, and protection for each child—all of which would be yielded by the state. Perfect girls will be conceived, developed, and engineered in state-owned breeding centers. They will be bound together in a communal venue under the instruction and control of female savants."

Caretakers? A perfect occupation for pedophiles...

This person is still a child, in the frontal cortex developmental sense, and likely has not actually been in an all-female competitive situation herself. Even when vying against, say, a Greta Christina, her callowness will likely collapse under the competition for dominance of the conversation.

On the other hand, by the time she finishes her 700 page "Feminist Manifesto", she will either be old enough to reject it as fatuous child-speak, or it's possible that the culture war will have culminated, even in her favor. Still, she will have to deal with the problems of testosterone and free will. And that is on top of how she will get her oil changed.

4 comments:

"That is my intention. Men would be made more valuable, and their quality of life would be dramatically improved. They would have a subsidised existence if you will, akin to going on an all-expenses paid vacation that lasts from birth to death."

Coupled with her viewpoint that:

"The purpose of living is merely to persist and perpetuate our species. If someone is willing to give you all you require to survive and live comfortably, simply because you exist, then you have already achieved all that truly matters."

If there is no purpose of living other than mere existence, reproduced endlessly, and that is all that truly matters, then on what basis does this person presume to make judgments (for others) that their quality of life would be "drastically improved" by the imposition of her agenda?

Perhaps it would be a waste of time to suggest that this person read the Bible Book of Ecclesiastes for a somewhat different perspective on such an "idyllic" life style for men. The Preacher, presumably King Solomon, purportedly the wisest man ever, who had all that the subject desires for all men: and he considered it meaningless, a life not worth living.

It does NOT suffice to argue that the wisest of men is still stupider than the stupidest of women - after all, King Solomon managed to create and live in a microcosm of the putative "best of all possible worlds" imagined by the subject. That puts him at least on the same level as her Royal Brilliance.

Just a thought: would she be willing to serve the rest of femininity as a concubine for men's pleasure? If not, why not? Her credo declares that mere existence is the sine qua non of living. As long as her material needs are taken care of, on what logical grounds could she complain for being treated as she wishes to treat men? She would already have achieved "all that truly matters." Since she already HAS achieved that minimalist goal (mere existence), WHY IS SHE COMPLAINING ABOUT THE STATUS QUO?

Stan, you really do find some choice examples of insanity writ large! The inmates truly are running the asylum!

I'll bet I could find some 19th Century Manifest Destiny literature that uses much the same sentiments for the indigenous inhabitants. Didn't they get put on reservations for the good of society? I thought that was racist.

Maybe they want to put men into something akin to internment camps?

She tries to go out of her way not to use the word slave, but wasn't this this argument of many a slave owner, "Hey, they got three hots and a cot, what more do they need?"

This is of course nothing but delusion mental masturbation and feminist wish fulfillment. Does this person really think that the Russians, or the Islam, or China is going to go along with this sorta of nonsensical idea. I mean, if I was a practitioner of Islam, I would hold this screed up as a reason women need to but in Burkhas. I mean, aren't they taken care of?

Not as slaves, simply as workers performing a duty, in the same way workers today do. Only without the need for monetary reimbursement as they would have no need for such a thing. This would be highly monitored and regulated.

In other words,men are to become forced laborers,ie. work aginst your will without pay and under threat of punishment.This feminist has no idea that forced labor is a form of slavery.

Evolution Discussion Zone

Atheism Discussion Zone

Abortion Discussion Zone

"This institution will be based on the illimitable freedom of the human mind. For here we are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor to tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it."Thomas Jefferson, dedicating the University of Virginia

Behavior Problems?

Compendium of Rational Principles

Most people claim to be rational. But few have any idea of what that entails. Here is a list of articles that discuss the principles of logic, rational thought and related topics, such as evidence, truth and wisdom: